Talk:Satyr
Organization I'm curious as to why it is the Satyr entry is in a subcategory of Fey as opposed to being listed alongside Dryads and suchlike. Shouldn't it be moved to the Fey category and any Satyrs category be adjusted to prevent "double entries"? Gabeth 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC) :The satyrs category is there because there is a specific entry within the category (Baerelus). When we have specific dryad, centaurs, etc. character articles then sub-categories can be created and in the way it is with satyrs. Johnnyriot999 09:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC) :I understand why the Satyr has a category for members of the satyr race, but not why it's a subcategory of Fey. Additionally, wouldn't it be correct to have the Satyr entry outside of its own subcategory? I'm sure a librarian would agree that when you have a category tree, you wouldn't do what is done here. The main entry for a subcategory shouldn't be in a subcategory but in the level directly above it. Gabeth 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) ::I disagree with that last statement as that's how it's done throughout the wiki, including non-race articles and categories. This is in order to prevent double entries as I've said before. Also, the satyr category is a subcategory of the fey because they would otherwise have no category to fit into and that creates a break in the so-called "category tree". The point of which is to be able to access any article of the wiki by starting from the root category. ::The other concern is have two types of articles in the same category. For example with the Ogre category. In the future, ogre characters would be placed directly in this category. Ogre-magi characters on the other hand have their own subcategory. If I were to use your system (please correct me if I have this wrong), both ogre characters and the articles of half-ogre and ogre mage would be place in the same category of Category:Ogres. This to me is sloppy, a bit careless and isnt in the same spirit with our categorization of inhabitants in general. Johnnyriot999 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC) :::I see, so it's limitations of the software that Wikia uses. In that case, I have no further problem. So long, and thanks for the fish. Gabeth 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Also, let's suppose a reader encounters an article called "Fred the Satyr". He scrolls to the bottom and clicks the Category:Satyrs link to go to the Satyrs category. In addition to being able to see all the Satyrs (as well as any Satyr-related subcategories), (s)he can reach the Satyr article itself pretty quickly. The categorization issue does provoke some debate. For example, at the moment, we are listing an article about a 7th level wizard in both the Category:7th level wizards and the Category:Wizards categories. Therefore the rule of thumb would be to list an article in the most specific possible category, and also all of that category's ancestors. The argument is that if a reader was looking for all wizards, they would be able to look in the wizards category, and then refine their search from there by selecting a specific level of wizard. This feature is mainly for DMs looking to include canon characters in their campaign. Complicated! Fw190a8 02:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC) :::::I would only add that my rationale for the "wizards/3rd level wizards" arguments (a point brought up way back when) is that the latter subcategory is a degree of measure of the former, meaning they are, for the most part, the same thing. Therefore I can see why it would make sense to put a fitting article in both those categories. Johnnyriot999 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Concise By the way, this article leaves a lot to the imagination! Fw190a8 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Home Plane How can the Feywild be the home Plane of Satyrs prior to 4th ed? Wasn't Feywild invented in 4th ed, even if with a nice retcon?LylaNikker (talk) 20:15, February 14, 2019 (UTC) :The infobox only has one "Homelands" field, so the most recent info is put there. Edition-specific fields are in the tabs above the "General Information" block. —Moviesign (talk) 00:56, February 15, 2019 (UTC) :Thank you! LylaNikker (talk) 08:19, February 15, 2019 (UTC)